I really enjoyed both professor’s talks today, especially Myra Seaman’s and how she clearly explained the different facets of her argument. However, before they came, Professor Vander Zee and I were discussing how I didn’t exactly understand what either of them were talking about. Though I understood Bruns’ article more so than Seaman’s, I was surprised by the way they articulated their articles.
For one, Seaman’s paper was confusing in its structure, and I didn’t understand what she was arguing or how she was going about it. I do understand, however, that she was speaking to a round table of experts who had studied the medieval ages for years. Yet, I couldn’t figure out where her thesis was, and she suddenly switched to the first person in the middle of her paper. It just seemed a bit strange, and I felt that she could have cleared up what she was saying in her paper. Maybe that’s how scholars at round tables write papers, but it just seemed foreign to me.
I really liked Bruns’ format, however. I was glad that he showed us an online article. I think a lot of people are turned off by online literary journals and online scholarly articles when, in reality, they are just as viable as those in print. Plus, the online journal he submitted to was relatively new. Many, including me, are often skeptical of new publishers, though they often have really good, fresh insights into different areas of study.
However, I wasn’t exactly sure what Bruns studies. Is he just focusing on Hitchcock’s newspaper imagery for his upcoming novel or a class, or is this his overall focus of research, in general? I definitely like what he is doing, but I would have liked to know why he studies this and what he does with this material.
Glad we had these professor talks today, however. Definitely great to see what professors do outside of class. It’s all so impressive!
No comments yet.